Before I Head Down to D.C….

March 3, 2009

…Let me share with you a few questions and topics of interest:

1.  Why can’t the National Telecommunications and Information Association (NTIA) use the same qualifying language for fund eligibility as the Rural Utilities Service RUS?  In sum and substance, a company is not eligible for funds under the RUS if they have more than a 2% national market share.  This would eliminate the concerns of ILECs, big wireless, and large cable companies who already have billions of dollars from engorging themselves further.  Give us guys under 2% market share a chance!
2.  For fiber infrastructure deployment-–it is my belief that carriers that provide an open access network platform should be favored over those who don’t.  Carriers (who as a normal business practice offer wholesale backbone capacity and dark fiber leases to other carriers) should move to the head of the line.  In my opinion, any Federal dollars spent on fiber optic backbone should have a requirement that, at a minimum, dark fiber must be made available to other carriers on a commercial lease basis.  A closed network carrier plus Federal funding for network extensions will not promote competition-–just a bigger closed network footprint.  Carriers with closed networks should be required to open an appreciable percentage of their existing dark fiber for lease to other carriers before getting dollar number one from the NTIA.  Talk about a fiber fantasy!
3.  Flipper…and I don’t mean the dolphin.  Yes, there are entities out there that will take the funds, install or warehouse something (fiber, PoPs, tower, wireless, WiMax, etc.) and then sell it to someone else a few years down the road for a profit.  Since the NTIA funds are grants, whatever flipper gets is 100% profit.
4.  The over-reachers.  How will funds be managed to avoid a carrier from building over an existing carrier, especially a closed network carrier building over a carrier with an open access network platform as described in point #2?   Remember the great land grab and Telecom meltdown circa 2001-2003-–lots of redundant networks built on top of each other in certain markets.  Back then, private capital took billions of dollars of losses, given the irrational exuberance of “build it and they will come” prevailing culture.  If CEO’s were willing to piss away private capital, what makes one believe some won’t do it with public grant money that comes without any equity interests?
5.  Cross dressing.  How will funds be managed to optimize their use?  For example, AFS is very good at metropolitan fiber optic network deployment.  We are very efficient at it and know the ins-and-outs.  I would not expect that AFS pitching tower builds for Federal funds to be taken seriously (in a rational world) as this is not a historical, established proven core competency.  Likewise, one would not expect a wireless mesh back haul provider to be seeking funds to deploy a fiber optic infrastructure when it is not a proven core competency.  Federal funds should not be used for on-the-job training and new ventures.  Once again, if open access platforms are funded as a priority as described in #2 above, the capacity or dark fiber lease will be available to others not so situated.  I must be dreaming.
6.  What stops a firm receiving funds by grant from placing them on their balance sheet and then levering them with debt?  Sure, they will use funds to meet the Federal proposal–but why should the tax payers get cut out of the gravy if they can lever the funds?  Let’s face it, if a participant levers funds by debt and goes bankrupt, the taxpayer is stuck as well. Some companies may actually lever funds by debt, and use the debt to pay dividends.  Is that good use of the program? (Did I just piss off a bunch of shady types or hand out a real good idea for the ethically challenged?)

I have more, but will save it for my beltway visit.  The above, at least to me, is all about commonsense.  As much as I’m tempted to write further about commonsense and the beltway, my commonsense tells me to stop writing now.

Written by Dave Rusin - Telecom Executive
Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Netvouz
  • description
  • ThisNext
  • MisterWong
  • Wists
StumbleUpon It!

Comments

Got something to say?





"viagra patent expire" Viagra Sale
viagra anxiety

2010 Metro Connect (Part I)

No Comments

February 8, 2010

I recently attended the 2010 Metro Connect annual event in Miami, Florida. As long as I can remember, I have been a speaker at this event. In my opinion, this event is better than many others at providing substance over rhetoric. The team at Capacity Media, producer of this annual event, works [...]

IT Expo

No Comments

February 4, 2010

I am occasionally asked to speak at various industry events or submit a form to suggest topic. This year, I have decided to focus more heavily on non-Telecom events and turn my attention toward IT or vertical market-focused speaking opportunities. My messages of achieving (purchasing) network reliability and understanding the games that are [...]

Special Access and a Smart Policy (Part II)

2 comments

January 28, 2010

As I read through a recent 127 page FCC filing on special access, it reminds me once again, that various CLECs do not recognize this 14-year-old business model has not worked well historically. Two points in the filing stood out and really irked me—the arrogant CLECs’ demands that ILECs lower rental costs (because the [...]

A Broken Record (Part I of II)

2 comments

January 26, 2010

Here we go again. I really don’t enjoy sounding like a broken record but the constant badgering of the FCC and ILECs by the CLECs needs to stop.
My posts this week focus on the recent petitions filed with the FCC about regulating special access, and include my response and “Sensible Seven Point Policy Plan.” [...]

Quiz Show!

No Comments

January 19, 2010

I try to avoid politics unless they are related to Telecom. Today I am providing a two part commentary…the first part is a Telecom quiz question and the second one turns its attention to Wall Street greed and our tax money.
Part I: Telecom quiz question (the answer follows at the end of the [...]

Duh!

1 Comment

January 12, 2010

I ran across this gem of an article on the IPTV News website.
“All I can say is, “Duh.” It’s called physics – optical fiber is going to provide the highest quality of user experience and reliability, and will scale bandwidth growth than any other medium…pure and simple.
Wall Street – are you paying attention?”
Fibre-optic service [...]

A Sensible Broadband Policy

No Comments

January 7, 2010

I know you’ve been on the edges of your seats (President Obama included) awaiting my broadband policy recommendations and I don’t want to keep you in suspense any longer.
Here is what my policy would look like:
1. Implement bill and keep – end of debate and fraud.
2. Outsource management of the USF and apply funds only to projects [...]

BT Broadband

1 Comment

January 5, 2010

In previous lives I have traveled the world for business reasons, so I keep a watchful eye on Telecom happenings in other parts of the world. When I spot something interesting, I like to share it with readers.
I just finished reading an article in the Financial Times about British Telecom (BT) and a relationship [...]

My Take on Acquisitions 2010

1 Comment

December 31, 2009

Welcome to a new year of fun and excitement in our ever-evolving world of Telecom charades and misdirection! I do expect our industry to grow this year.
Speaking for AFS, we have about 80% of our new MRR plan booked and awaiting delivery over the next several months. Our sales professionals will pick up [...]

Happy New Year

No Comments

December 29, 2009

As the year draws to a close, I would like to wish many of you a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year!
To the carriers who simply compete on the lowest price, I hope you finally hit rock-bottom in 2010 to protect the health of our industry and the strategic broadband interests of our country. [...]

"));